Ways to prevent mass shootings?

[New Scandanavia]

Do what Australia did that worked

[Caecus]

The actual social problem with guns tends to occur more with the culture of violence and incidental killings; i.e, people shoot each other by accident, because they're scared, or because they shoot themselves. As I mentioned before, spree shootings are trivial as a cause of death in America, very rarely do people end up being deranged enough to pick up a gun and kill innocent people. The gun control lobby is using this as an issue to force gun control laws when it is a bad issue, once closely examined.

 

The general idea is that we increase licensing requirements by getting groups, which are more easily-managed than individuals, to handle guns, complete with fines for losing track of guns, having guns be used for crimes, accidents, and so on. Once we have such groups for management available, if it still doesn't work and murder rates continue to be obscenely high, we can consider taking self-defense handguns out of the hands of individuals, or implement strict licensing.

 

Ironically, red-states tend to be more collectivist in that they trend towards religion and community affiliation. This is the very basis on which we can implement group-based licensing, because at the outset it'll simply be having your gun be registered to your name, to your gun being registered to a trust based out of your hunting club or your church. As lawsuits come in, these collectives will understand the importances of gun safety, as well as making sure you know and can trust who's going to be handling your lethal weapons, so all gun owners will end up being more responsible and less likely to get guns into the hands of criminals and madmen.

I like this idea. I think the problem is that our society is philosophically conservative, in the sense that we don't particularly like things to change. It can be a good thing, since it tends to give longevity to nations that have it. This could be a goal, but I don't think it would be achieved in our lifetime. Even the 1 month waiting period is considered pretty radical by some people. Instituting a governing body to manage collectives might be considered government overreach. If anything is going to happen, it has to be at the state level. 

 

Regardless to say, even though gun violence is a small percentage of death in America, it is something that can be more logically prevented. Someone said something about cars earlier. Yeah, people die in traffic accidents, and no, it would be irrational to ban cars entirely. But it would help if all cars had seat belts. Same could be said for gun violence. The fact of the matter is, people are dying because of gun violence, and it is being used as a major political issue. But unlike cars, there are a couple of moderate, basic things we can do about it now. 

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I am not sure that America has Australia's laid back culture....

[Doktor Avalanche]

I am not sure that America has Australia's laid back culture....

With such a diversity from rural farmlands, deserts, forest, plains to incredible Metropolises that have the population size of some nations alone living in them- I can say no, but you can find areas that do within four blocks distance of each other.

 

The United State's diverse cultural and ethnic, political and religious, regional and global associations are one to the experience difficult to grasp unless one experiences it for themselves. When I lived in Santa Monica, CA for a time I experience within four blocks of my home was a huge British culture, a large Hindu practice, a big LGBT community and massive amounts of free illegal substances being shared. Also, damn good coffee houses. Four blocks inland from Santa Monica I found a huge Hispanic population, an Evangelical Christian religious practice, a big anti-liberal zone and massive amounts of graffiti due to the location being the border of the inland gang territories. Different mindsets, different identities, different religions, different takes on peace and war, different thoughts on how to solve problems.

 

We have Australia's laid back culture. Its here among the rest of the diversity.

[Doktor Avalanche]

The actual social problem with guns tends to occur more with the culture of violence and incidental killings; i.e, people shoot each other by accident, because they're scared, or because they shoot themselves.

The numbers state otherwise- literally below 1% of all firearms incidents since 1968.

[Solomon]

Huh. Everything I found countered what the agenda driven WHO tried to prove.

 

The World Health Organization is agenda-driven in the sense that it works to improve the world's public health, but I don't think the US gun problem is something that keeps its employees awake at night. What was the agenda you were thinking of?

 

Also, have you read "Ricochet" and, if so, what did you think of the points it raised?

[Doktor Avalanche]

The World Health Organization is agenda-driven in the sense that it works to improve the world's public health, but I don't think the US gun problem is something that keeps its employees awake at night. What was the agenda you were thinking of?

 

The World Health Organization is in association with the United Nations who has been demanding that the United States politicians officially create and enforce a Federal Gun Ban on its citizens.

 

No I have not read Ricochet.

[New Scandanavia]

Seance less guns=less guns violence

[Lu Xun]

@Vasil: I mean that spree shooters are a miniscule proportion of total gun deaths, and they're a bad reason for gun control.

 

By the way, if you like the idea of having mandatory collective ownership of guns, so that gun owners can keep their guns, introduce new people to the hobby, get to share fun toys, and keep gun control fanatics off our backs, please help get this to 5 signatures so it'll appear on Change.org. I don't expect this to succeed, I posted the idea on a board with many military members who thought this wouldn't fly in the face of American culture, which is often individualistic, but I want to see how far the collective ownership idea can fly.

 

I think it's a good compromise between gun control lobbyists' desire for more control, and gun hobbyists' desire for individual ownership.

 

https://www.change.org/p/congress-mandatory-gun-trusts

[Solomon]

The World Health Organization is in association with the United Nations who has been demanding that the United States politicians officially create and enforce a Federal Gun Ban on its citizens.

That's news to me. Please give me a link to the UN's statement.

 

You should read Ricochet. It's not a literary masterpiece by any means but I think you'd find it interesting.

[Bored now Leafing]

Let's have a closer look at that statement you made not just the part you want to focus on.

 

(1)Guns are unique, in the sense that they are ranged ballistic weapons capable of rapid fire rates, and a person with no skill whatsoever could operate it. You want to prevent mass deaths, it's quite simple. Ban guns. The reason why you don't see mass stabbings is because it actually takes skill to use a melee weapon and kill a lot of people with it. Using a gun and pointing it at someone does not take any skill whatsoever. 

 

(2)Fact is, if the government wanted to institute a regime of oppression, it's quite easy to roll in a division of MBTs and overrun any place they wanted. Sure, you might say that having guns allows us to resist the government (should that ever happen), but the blatant fact is, the expectations of 300 year old dead men do not apply to modern warfare and police action.

 

(3)It's entirely unfeasible for the government to declare a war against the people for every single reason you just gave.

 

(4)A genuine lack of understand of how American politics works, combined with living under a rock of ignorance all your life would give you that impression. I honestly don't know how to respond to this, except try studying history or taking a poly-sci class instead of watching Fox News all day.

(1) Last time i checked auto aim was not a feature included on hand guns and rifles.
The real reason you don't see mass stabbings is because knives and swords are not the popular weapon of choice for most suicidal maniacs.

 

This talk of skill just sounds like something an FPS junky  might spout off.

 

(2) This part here is you siding with the logic that an armed populace is irrelevant.

 

(3) This is you in another post completely reversing the course of your statement

 

Consistency is important.

 

(4) Further in that other post launching a plethora of thinly veiled insults and statements about your superiority.

 

So is it better to be called out on your insults, or do you prefer to have them ignored by a quick bit of snark?

 

The thing that makes the comparison of guns to melee weapons absurd is that if a person really wanted to kill and maim lots of people a knife would be more effective in a crowd then a gun cause unless your gun shoots holes in people it's 1 bullet 1 kill IF YOU CAN AIM, if you can't aim and you rely on spray and pray then the damage you do will be a lot lower plus the whole gun shot sound draws attention to you fast and that means anyone looking to stop you will be able to find you faster, compare this to a gun free situation get a knife and start cutting people in a crowd and the first sounds anyone can hear is the screams of the injured no need to aim and no need to reload leaves a lot more time for slicing, so unless everyone else is carrying a knife as well you likely are not going to get a knife in the back or any other form of resistance for some time.

I shall also point out here that when media makes celebrities out of these killers it encourages more of them to do these kind of things, all this anti-gun hub-bub makes the media want to focus on guns.

[Caecus]

(1) Last time i checked auto aim was not a feature included on hand guns and rifles.

The real reason you don't see mass stabbings is because knives and swords are not the popular weapon of choice for most suicidal maniacs.

 

This talk of skill just sounds like something an FPS junky  might spout off.

LOL, this just made my day. Do you ever proofread your stuff before you post?

 

 

(2) This part here is you siding with the logic that an armed populace is irrelevant.

YES!~ YES! YES! You are finally getting the point. An armed populace is now COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in terms of the RIGHT OF REVOLUTION! 

 

 

(3) This is you in another post completely reversing the course of your statement

 

Consistency is important.

I keep telling you, the purpose of the second amendment is the right of revolution, and that is completely irrelevant now for EVERY SINGLE REASON you gave. EVERYTHING I've been talking about is the right of revolution, the purpose of the second amendment. If you honestly believe that your right of revolution comes from a 300-year-old idea of checking a federal government's power using a decentralized military system of militias you honestly haven't been around the last 100+ years. 

 

 

(4) Further in that other post launching a plethora of thinly veiled insults and statements about your superiority.

No, you just don't understand how executive orders work. Or how American politics work. I honestly don't give two shits whether or not you understand how government works, so, tdlr. 

 

 

So is it better to be called out on your insults, or do you prefer to have them ignored by a quick bit of snark?

 

I honestly don't have very high expectations of you. Granted, being on the internet, I have very low expectations of everyone, but particularly of you. Whether or not you logically respond, I am still expecting the least intelligent, insulting, pointless argument over not my central argument. Out of the 4 to 5 posts you have made so far, you never once counter my argument on the right of revolution and the irrelevant role that guns now play in that right. So congratulations. You are meeting every one of my extremely low expectations. Ignore away, or call away. I still plan on reading another irrelevant post from you that does nothing to attack my main point, and me saying these exact same words.

[Bored now Leafing]

Government power tends to make people crazy or draw the functioning crazies to it.

The higher up in government a person gets the more everyone will let them get away with things normally against the rules, this has two primary effects.

First they become isolated more power equals more isolation, this of course makes them out of touch with regular life and unless they have a really good moral compass to guide them they often feel justified in breaking every rule there is.

The second ties in with human nature, the nature of man is that of opportunity and the borrowed power of a nation is a very large opportunity and thus it makes the biggest temptation to abuse.

To imagine that the person in charge of a nation brought to power by votes is somehow morally superior compared to thous who cast the votes is not rational.

Rules are for moral people, rules are for the law abiding, rules mean nothing in a nation with immoral rulers or an immoral populace, for a nation of poor morals is a nation headed for dictatorship, or already there.

Now here is the important part the exception to this is when the government of the nation engages in activity that demoralizes the moral/law abiding part of the populace, one big way to do that is to convince them to give up there arms willingly and to get them to surrender the right and duty of self-defense and rely completely on the will and wisdom of the select few to protect them and if the moral part of the populace can be convinced to do this then they will not stand in the way of an occupying army.

As it stands the moral population of the US has not been completely demoralized, but then that is why The king goes around talking about the need for gun control and the media acts as loyal parrots to that agenda.

 

Caecus

Insult count: 13

Edited October 14, 2015 by Quew

[Caecus]

Now here is the important part the exception to this is when the government of the nation engages in activity that demoralizes the moral/law abiding part of the populace, one big way to do that is to convince them to give up there arms willingly and to get them to surrender the right and duty of self-defense and rely completely on the will and wisdom of the select few to protect them and if the moral part of the populace can be convinced to do this then they will not stand in the way of an occupying army.

Again, nothing in this giant paragraph addresses the Right of Revolution and how guns play a part in that. ADDRESS MY BLOODY ARGUMENT. Here, I'll simplify my argument, so you can disagree with more useless shit:

 

"Civilian class firearms play no role today in the right of revolution as intended by the founding fathers."

 

Ironically, if the United States should ever undergo a total collapse, it won't be because the government has come to take your guns, but rather, because aggressive radicals lacking a basic understanding of government and reason tear apart the social fabric which keeps it all together. 

 

 

Edit: At least you can count. Do passive aggressive pokes at your intelligence count as insults? What about suggestions of your head being firmly lodged in a certain body cavity? Surely suggestions don't count as blatant insults. Though I suppose they might fall under passive aggressive pokes. 

 

Oh, and:

 

 

I honestly don't have very high expectations of you. Granted, being on the internet, I have very low expectations of everyone, but particularly of you. Whether or not you logically respond, I am still expecting the least intelligent, insulting, pointless argument over not my central argument. Out of the 4 to 5 posts you have made so far, you never once counter my argument on the right of revolution and the irrelevant role that guns now play in that right. So congratulations. You are meeting every one of my extremely low expectations. Ignore away, or call away. I still plan on reading another irrelevant post from you that does nothing to attack my main point, and me saying these exact same words.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Caecus

[Doktor Avalanche]

That's news to me. Please give me a link to the UN's statement.

 

You should read Ricochet. It's not a literary masterpiece by any means but I think you'd find it interesting.

To be honest I doubt this document is authentic. I have not found anything directly stating officially. The only evidence has been undocumented statements from reporters and United Nations members commenting about how they disagree with the United States' "loose firearms laws" and their desire to "end our loose laws" yet nothing stated is official United Nations documentation. However if this document is official which I doubt, I would rather be safe than sorry and only remain skeptical yet observant to possibilities.

[Bored now Leafing]

 

Again, nothing in this giant paragraph addresses the Right of Revolution and how guns play a part in that. ADDRESS MY BLOODY ARGUMENT. Here, I'll simplify my argument, so you can disagree with more useless shit:

 

"Civilian class firearms play no role today in the right of revolution as intended by the founding fathers."

 

Ironically, if the United States should ever undergo a total collapse, it won't be because the government has come to take your guns, but rather, because aggressive radicals lacking a basic understanding of government and reason tear apart the social fabric which keeps it all together. 

 

 

Edit: At least you can count. Do passive aggressive pokes at your intelligence count as insults? What about suggestions of your head being firmly lodged in a certain body cavity? Surely suggestions don't count as blatant insults. Though I suppose they might fall under passive aggressive pokes. 

 

Oh, and:

 

 

I honestly don't have very high expectations of you. Granted, being on the internet, I have very low expectations of everyone, but particularly of you. Whether or not you logically respond, I am still expecting the least intelligent, insulting, pointless argument over not my central argument. Out of the 4 to 5 posts you have made so far, you never once counter my argument on the right of revolution and the irrelevant role that guns now play in that right. So congratulations. You are meeting every one of my extremely low expectations. Ignore away, or call away. I still plan on reading another irrelevant post from you that does nothing to attack my main point, and me saying these exact same words.

 

I had the feeling you were not actually reading/comprehending much if anything i was typing based on how you worded your first reply but i thought i would make sure by ADDRESSING YOUR BLOODY ARGUMENT in 3 or 4 different ways.

This is why this and so many places are so boring people like you can't debate you only throw insults, worst of all you do not see your own failure to comprehend what is in front of you and as such you will not grow instead you will sit in your own verbal vitriol and find someone else to rant at and fight with.

A heads up when you fling insults at people you harm your own arguments and people tend to form a bad opinion of you.

 

I don't count the same set of insults twice.

Caecus

Insult count: 13

Edited October 14, 2015 by Quew

[Solomon]

To be honest I doubt this document is authentic. I have not found anything directly stating officially. The only evidence has been undocumented statements from reporters and United Nations members commenting about how they disagree with the United States' "loose firearms laws" and their desire to "end our loose laws" yet nothing stated is official United Nations documentation. However if this document is official which I doubt, I would rather be safe than sorry and only remain skeptical yet observant to possibilities.

You were correct; the document is not authentic. The United Nations "Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group" doesn't exist.

Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/unoda.asp

[Doktor Avalanche]

You were correct; the document is not authentic. The United Nations "Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group" doesn't exist.

Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/unoda.asp

The Conspiracy Theorist in me trusts Snopes.com only 33.3% of the time. lol.

[Caecus]

I had the feeling you were not actually reading/comprehending much if anything i was typing based on how you worded your first reply but i thought i would make sure by ADDRESSING YOUR BLOODY ARGUMENT in 3 or 4 different ways.

 

No, you haven't. Explain to me "again" what your argument is. Explain exactly how guns play a relevant role in the right for revolution. Here, I'll help structure your sentence now:

 

"Guns still play a relevant role in the right of revolution because...."

 

And then actually say something on that topic, instead of going on a paranoia rant that the government is going to take your guns, overrun cities, and destroy this country. 

[Lu Xun]

And once again, the easy argument remains that small arms are a small cause of death in modern warfare. If we consider the spirit of the Second Amendment, we should be allowed to own TOWs, IFVs, and MANPADS. Consider Afghanistan, for instance. The Taliban fights on their home terrain, but only with small arms and guerrilla warfare. They are killed in droves by airpower, artillery, and drones, and they have man-portable anti-tanks and anti-air.

 

In an actual revolt, it will be humans with small arms fighting drones, armor, and airpower. Psychological factors aside, my money is on the machines.

[Bored now Leafing]

Psychology is a very important factor still and until the military becomes 100% automated it will remain a large factor, when a solider is given an order to do bad things the ones of poor moral character will follow orders so long as they face zero risk, thous of higher moral character will protest so long as they are not burdened with ideas similar to that of original sin.

If guns are banned and it is accepted it is the same as telling thous of high morals that they have done something wrong and if they think they have done something wrong they will stand down so long as they think they are in the wrong.

If there is a true revolt and not a false start there will be a split in the military it won't be just the civil population vs the gov.

[Caecus]

And once again, the easy argument remains that small arms are a small cause of death in modern warfare. If we consider the spirit of the Second Amendment, we should be allowed to own TOWs, IFVs, and MANPADS. Consider Afghanistan, for instance. The Taliban fights on their home terrain, but only with small arms and guerrilla warfare. They are killed in droves by airpower, artillery, and drones, and they have man-portable anti-tanks and anti-air.

 

In an actual revolt, it will be humans with small arms fighting drones, armor, and airpower. Psychological factors aside, my money is on the machines.

 

Psychology is a very important factor still and until the military becomes 100% automated it will remain a large factor, when a solider is given an order to do bad things the ones of poor moral character will follow orders so long as they face zero risk, thous of higher moral character will protest so long as they are not burdened with ideas similar to that of original sin.

If guns are banned and it is accepted it is the same as telling thous of high morals that they have done something wrong and if they think they have done something wrong they will stand down so long as they think they are in the wrong.

If there is a true revolt and not a false start there will be a split in the military it won't be just the civil population vs the gov.

 

If, if if if if if. That is such a big if. I mean, we set up witch burning trials for presidents that got some head from not his wife. We are so willing to skewer anyone (not just the president, if you don't remember the Petraeus incident) that the very thought of a misrepresented government which provokes public outrage to the point where we would take up arms is unfeasible. 

 

Since the Civil War, the American government is a very stable government system. The military rests firmly within the hands of the executive branch instead of a popular career general. The powers of government is divided among three, mutually exclusive branches. A bicameral house makes it so that rapid radical change on the federal level doesn't happen. The US occupies it's own HEMIsphere of influence, with two giant oceans for buffer zones and a powerful navy to patrol. There is a clear method of succession once the president steps down, and the executive power can only be in the hands of one person for a period of (maximum) 8 years. We have a set-in-stone constitution that outlines how our government will work, and a framework to prevent radical changes to the system. 

 

Rome lasted a thousand years with not even half of the blessings we have. History should have high hopes for our nation and her longevity, but our critical weakness as a society is our tendency to radicalize in social crisis, and I would attribute this to our revolutionary heritage and stubborn, conservative nature. Should our nation ever become on the brink of another civil war, the two oceans won't be large enough to prevent other nations from taking advantage of the power vacuum. 

[WISD0MTREE]

Alright, so I haven't read all of the pages, but I did see confiscation a ton with "you cant beat dem drones man" and such. 

 

Let's assume that 10% of all armed Americans revolt. Realistically, I think it would be a shit ton more, but 10% is a nice, even, generous number. That gives us

• 1.5 million military personnel (They could most likely smuggle some shit off of base. Also, most military personnel tend to not be anti-gun pacifists from California, so this would likely be higher.)
• 13.5 million militia members (including ex-military and combat veterans) 
• About 3.5 million homes that could be used as safe houses
• Assuming that everyone gave $750 a year (which would be more, since "muh old white male republicans"), then that would be about $11,250,000,000 a year (about the size of Spain's spending; way more than Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
• Assuming that 1 in 5 vehicles (of the militia members, obviously) would be used for militia purposes, there would be about 2.4 million vehicles
• At least 15 million guns, but tons of people have collections (could be anywhere up to 90,000,000 and non-militant gun owners could have "tragic boating accidents" and "not hand guns to militia members")
• We would have aircraft (I can't find any FAA numbers. Almost all of their links are 404ing for me. I saw someplace that said there were about 100,000 private A/C in the USA, but it wasn't credible. If it was, then that would be around 10,000 aircraft. ) 
• Assuming that there are 250 rounds per weapon, then that could be anywhere from 15 billion to 90 billion rounds 

To add to that, jets can't enforce curfews, anti-protest laws, etc. in urban areas. Jets can't kick doors to take up guns. You need police or troops to do that. Lots of police won't risk their life to pick up weapons on $50,000 a year. In addition, foreign nations could give SAM launchers or MANPADS to shoot down planes. Or we could, you know, blow up their fuel tanks on the ground, destroy vital infrastructure that keeps them connected, or kill their pilots. 

 

We, as a nation, are sitting on a castle of cards. There are tons of internal problems that could have a ripple effect. How many of us could survive without PaW? 4chan? Tumblr? Reddit? The dark net? TV? If something dramatic were to happen to the power grid, the cities would be in complete anarchy. That is an additional front for the NG/military/police. Plus, the US government could use sites or TV stations for propaganda. Losing power would mean losing a valuable propaganda machine. Prison-breaks? Imagine a small number of prisoners taking this chance to be free. We do have a pretty decent number of prisoners. Farms? Cities son't produce as much food as rural areas. Guess who supports gun control? Mostly cities. I'm NOT saying that the government loyal side would starve, but their price of food would probably skyrocket. The government's logistics would also be a big problem. Many of the states with natural boundaries are red states. Think about the Mississippi River, the Rocky Mountains, the Missouri River, etc. It would be hard to get supplies across to, let's say, Denver if the supply trucks had a limited number of routes that were armed with rebels. Outside influences? Wouldn't countries that hate the good old USA aid the militias with training and weapons? Wouldn't terrorists love the police to be in anarchy to carry out terroristy-things? 

 

tl;dr: The US government would be absolutely !@#$ed over by any armed uprising, so confiscation is a big "no." 

Edited October 14, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Bored now Leafing]

If, if if if if if. That is such a big if. I mean, we set up witch burning trials for presidents that got some head from not his wife. We are so willing to skewer anyone (not just the president, if you don't remember the Petraeus incident) that the very thought of a misrepresented government which provokes public outrage to the point where we would take up arms is unfeasible. 

 

Since the Civil War, the American government is a very stable government system. The military rests firmly within the hands of the executive branch instead of a popular career general. The powers of government is divided among three, mutually exclusive branches. A bicameral house makes it so that rapid radical change on the federal level doesn't happen. The US occupies it's own HEMIsphere of influence, with two giant oceans for buffer zones and a powerful navy to patrol. There is a clear method of succession once the president steps down, and the executive power can only be in the hands of one person for a period of (maximum) 8 years. We have a set-in-stone constitution that outlines how our government will work, and a framework to prevent radical changes to the system. 

 

Rome lasted a thousand years with not even half of the blessings we have. History should have high hopes for our nation and her longevity, but our critical weakness as a society is our tendency to radicalize in social crisis, and I would attribute this to our revolutionary heritage and stubborn, conservative nature. Should our nation ever become on the brink of another civil war, the two oceans won't be large enough to prevent other nations from taking advantage of the power vacuum. 

There were bigger secrets to be kept then Bill's extra marital activities and if he was going to be impeached it was thought better to have it be for some tabloid level nonsense instead of something that might endanger some backroom deal or another.

 

If the constitution is so set-in-stone then why are the proper method of changing Constitutional laws not being used?

We get this endless fearmongering about guns and hints at Australian/UK style gun laws instead of seeing a straight forward proposal to amend the constitution like during the prohibition era, they amended the constitution to ban alcohol then figured out how much of a bad idea it was and amended the constitution again to legalize it.

 

Rome lasted so long because communication and travel was slower, when ideas and people move faster so do events.

 

In this whole debate i have never said these things will happen i have been laying out a picture of what things might look like if a President carries out a threat to bypass congress and attacks a core ideal of America in this case the 2nd amendment.

[Arthur James]

building a great wall? great....now you have found a way to consume something